4 ms·

So the people who build the Death Star are innocent? The guilty don’t feel guilty, they learn not to. I wouldn’t personally want to work in weapons development

So the people who build the Death Star are innocent? The guilty don’t feel guilty, they learn not to. I wouldn’t personally want to work in weapons development, but I certainly wouldn’t want to work in weapons development for a military that as a result of its offensive use of its weapons is making children in the third world afraid of blue skies. But I have a gmail and I use google maps, so I’m not really in a position to judge.

tlrobinson 8y ago
Death Stars don't kill people. People kill people.
- bonesss 8y ago
  ... ideally with Death Stars, millions at a time :D
slg 8y ago
I know you are being a little facetious with the Death Star line, but I think that bares a distinction because it would be a WMD and part of its intended purpose is to kill civilians. Likewise in our world developing indiscriminate killing WMDs like bio-weapons deserves extra scrutiny. Drones are not indiscriminate killing machines any more than manned aircraft. If they are used indiscriminately, the problem should be with the leadership ordering their use in that manner. My overall point is that drones are not a unique class of weapon. You should either have a problem with Google working on a weapons program or not. Working on drones is no worse than working on manned aircraft.
- marklgr 8y ago
  Drones can be produced and deployed in higher quantities than aircraft, and with AI you won't necessarily need one man behind each drone. So yes, it is potentially worse than aircraft, for the same reason a police/army of bots could potentially be much worse than a "conventional" one.
  - slg 8y ago
    >Drones can be produced and deployed in higher quantities than aircraft Once again that is a political issue. If someone finds a way to suddenly reduce the cost of bullets by 50%, the response from the military shouldn’t be to buy twice the number of bullets. >with AI you won't necessarily need one man behind each drone The article denies that is how the AI would be used.
    - Lennie 8y ago
      Just a matter of time.
- intended 8y ago
  It’s “purpose” is to protect the empire - it is a tool. It’s intended as a deterrent. Repeat indefinitely for all “tools” (There’s an entire subreddit dedicated to it. The empire did nothing wrong) You can Always justify making a bigger better gun or “tool”. Don’t make tools you wouldn’t want used against you. Tech engineers in particular are more than normally exposed to the ideas of weapons and responsibility of creators for their creations. Dodging that is the opposite of being a coder/nerd.
  - fixermark 8y ago
    Or, perhaps, the optimal survival strategy of a nation-state is to make the thing you don't want used against you until it becomes so onerous that international standards move to ban it. Gas warfare was banned after WWI, but during WWI, both allies and central powers used it before it was banned. Nuclear weapons are banned... After the Allies used them twice. International bans on intolerable weapons are a great idea. Unilateral disarmament of a useful weapon with no international ban may be suicidal.
- weber111 8y ago
  Regrettably, in the world as it is, we need--extraordinarily--competent people working on our weapons of mass destruction, too (in particular, nuclear command and control). Not a job I'd want, and not one I'm happy exists, but one I'm sure grateful someone is doing.
marklgr 8y ago
> The guilty don’t feel guilty, they learn not to. Along with the usual "If I didn't do it, someone else would".
- ionised 8y ago
  Also known as 'the ultimate cop-out'

tlrobinson 8y ago

Death Stars don't kill people. People kill people.

bonesss 8y ago
... ideally with Death Stars, millions at a time :D

slg 8y ago

I know you are being a little facetious with the Death Star line, but I think that bares a distinction because it would be a WMD and part of its intended purpose is to kill civilians. Likewise in our world developing indiscriminate killing WMDs like bio-weapons deserves extra scrutiny. Drones are not indiscriminate killing machines any more than manned aircraft. If they are used indiscriminately, the problem should be with the leadership ordering their use in that manner. My overall point is that drones are not a unique class of weapon. You should either have a problem with Google working on a weapons program or not. Working on drones is no worse than working on manned aircraft.

marklgr 8y ago
Drones can be produced and deployed in higher quantities than aircraft, and with AI you won't necessarily need one man behind each drone. So yes, it is potentially worse than aircraft, for the same reason a police/army of bots could potentially be much worse than a "conventional" one.
- slg 8y ago
  >Drones can be produced and deployed in higher quantities than aircraft Once again that is a political issue. If someone finds a way to suddenly reduce the cost of bullets by 50%, the response from the military shouldn’t be to buy twice the number of bullets. >with AI you won't necessarily need one man behind each drone The article denies that is how the AI would be used.
  - Lennie 8y ago
    Just a matter of time.
intended 8y ago
It’s “purpose” is to protect the empire - it is a tool. It’s intended as a deterrent. Repeat indefinitely for all “tools” (There’s an entire subreddit dedicated to it. The empire did nothing wrong) You can Always justify making a bigger better gun or “tool”. Don’t make tools you wouldn’t want used against you. Tech engineers in particular are more than normally exposed to the ideas of weapons and responsibility of creators for their creations. Dodging that is the opposite of being a coder/nerd.
- fixermark 8y ago
  Or, perhaps, the optimal survival strategy of a nation-state is to make the thing you don't want used against you until it becomes so onerous that international standards move to ban it. Gas warfare was banned after WWI, but during WWI, both allies and central powers used it before it was banned. Nuclear weapons are banned... After the Allies used them twice. International bans on intolerable weapons are a great idea. Unilateral disarmament of a useful weapon with no international ban may be suicidal.
weber111 8y ago
Regrettably, in the world as it is, we need--extraordinarily--competent people working on our weapons of mass destruction, too (in particular, nuclear command and control). Not a job I'd want, and not one I'm happy exists, but one I'm sure grateful someone is doing.

marklgr 8y ago

> The guilty don’t feel guilty, they learn not to. Along with the usual "If I didn't do it, someone else would".

ionised 8y ago
Also known as 'the ultimate cop-out'